lets see... I drive ~22000 miles per year.at $0.015/mile, that's $330 under the new tax

under the old version, those miles are split around 19000 miles at 22 mpg and 3000 miles at 60mpg. 864 gallons + 50 gallons = 914 gallons. at $0.184/gallon, that's $168.18 under the old tax

you're punishing truckers more than anything else. increased shipping costs means everything is going to cost more, people will spend less, and the economy starts sucking even more. Looks like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through.

Doesn't the gas tax already tax you per mile driven? And at the same time that it encourages efficient vehicles? If there is a shortfall, the rate can be increased. I don't like the idea of a GPS dealiewhatsit logging all my travels to the feds.

I think this is bullshiat. The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way. Mass transit isn't an option for most people. Why go after motorists when you could go after the trucking and freight industries? An empty truck with trailer is at least 30,000 lbs, and they can weigh up to 80,000 lbs when they're loaded up with cargo. That wears down infrastructure a lot more than my car....

bdub77:Hurdles being like huge retail companies like Walmart with fleets of trucks on the road constantly and lots and lots of cash to pay for this bill to die quickly and quietly. Right?

Walmart (and FedEx and UPS etc) would love for individual motorists to foot the bill for our infrastructure, or to pay the same amount for their massive fleets of huge trucks that individual motorists do with their cars.

In my state the government already knows how many miles you drive. Once a year the inspection station plugs into your computer and gets a data dump. It would be easy to combine the mile tax and municipal property tax into one consolidated registration fee.

Or they could just take 1.5 cents per mile target revenue times typical miles per year and charge $200 per year to register a car.

Only 19 states (18 + DC) require yearly safety inspections, so it would be easy to combine this in those states, but the other 32 states would have to implement some sort of inspection program - met with backlash of "Why do I have to bring my car in to let some government agent plug a computer in and see where I've been driving?"

/31 states do have emissions testing, but generally only in major metropolitan areas for pollution concerns -- most are not implemented statewide.

My commute is about 70 miles round trip and takes 40 minutes to an hour (traffic sucks). When the weather is good, I ride my motorcycle. Otherwise I drive my rather small car. Public transportation would take over 2 hours EACH WAY even if transfers are perfectly timed (and they never are).

So because I drive fuel efficient vehicles the government has decided I need to be punished? I have a plan. It involves tar, feather, rope and a few trees (some assembly required).

ferretman:Do you even no how many products you use contain petroleum? Just about anything plastic, make-up, lubrication products etc.; all use petroleum derivatives.

And do you know how much petroleum is forever wasted by burning it up in American automobiles vs. actually going to useful products?

And frankly, there's plenty of alternatives: corn-based plastic is fairly common, before we had plastic we had ebonite, and there's plenty of synthetic lubrication products out on the market. I'm not saying we remove all fossil fuel use, but we could easily reduce our needs by 75% by switching to viable alternatives that are already on the market. I have. And the US Navy is rapidly doing it too.

This isn't science fiction any more. The era of cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end - the faster people realize it, the better off our nation will be.

ferretman:Just don't complain when the cost for items goes up. All additional taxes/costs put onto manufacturers or shippers will be passed onto the consumer.

Currently, those companies are paying for road repairs via the fuel tax. If this change goes into effect, they will get off scott free, paying by the mile as if their trucks were cars. Do you think the reduced cost will be pass on to the consumer?

Well, I guess they have to do something<sarcasm>. And soon people just won't be buying as much gasoline and then how will government steal from them? After-all, these guys are about to reinvent the auto industry<not sarcasm>.

Wikispeed - 2 seat mid engine, rear wheel drive roadster, five star crash rating pending, 0-60 in 5 seconds, 100+MPG, and the best part is that in spite of all of that it can't meat federal safety requirements because it doesn't have air bags, only a five point racing harness commonly used to make 200MPH crashes survivable. And they even have the audacity to be in the continuing process of redesigning parts so that they can be fabricated in a home workshop making the owner completely independent of the auto industry's planned-obsolescence business model. The only way conceivable to build the car is license the manufacture out to as many shops as decide to opt in, because they can't build more than I believe fifty before the air bag thing kicks in.http://www.wikispeed.com/Affordable

Thank you internet. This is a first of many transformative ways you will free humanity from oligarchy(hopefully).

Tom_Slick:vernonFL: I do know there are exemptions for diesel (shouldn't they be tested MORE?)

The problem with diesels is up until recently with DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) there was no way to "clean" diesel exhaust, so what ever comes out of the engine is what comes out of the exhaust pipe. Emissions testing just tests all the equipment that cleans the exhaust.

Only half true. DIesel emissions systems have only appeared recently... but the amount of soot and other nano-particle filth belched by diesel engines is directly related to their state of tune and the health of their fuel injectors. You don't need fancy emissions hardware to significantly improve the exhaust from most of the diesels on the road, you just need conscientious maintenance.

A smog-control program aimed at enforcing decent maintenance on diesel engines could do a lot to clean up the air, but... would face a lot of opposition from a politically well-connected industry, not to mention a politically easy-to-inflame population segment.

Diesel emissions limits ARE arriving, in baby steps... but there's a reason that cars have been clean for thirty-plus years while trucks are just now starting to feel the heat.

Just doing the math quickly, this would nearly double the amount of federal tax I pay. Judging on 10 gallons a week average, comes out to about $95 / year in gas tax (Federal. I haven't included NYS gas tax, because even if they eliminate the fed gas tax, you'll never get NYS to give up on collecting a tax) I can safely round this up to $100, because I occasionally take trips where I drive and fill up the tank more often.

I also drive roughly 12,000 miles / year, which with the suggested tax of $0.015 / mile, would end up charging me $180 / year in taxes. So it's at least an 80% increase. Imagine the outrage if they suggested that you pay 80% more taxes in any other area.

If they start charging for distance driven, are they also going to eliminate toll roads on interstates? Because when I take those long roadtrips, I often take roads like the I-90 or the PA Turnpike which charge me for the privilege, which I assumed was supposed to go for maintenance on those roads. (Considering tolls are often higher for larger vehicles like trucks and based on how far you drive along the interstates)

As electric and hybrid cars steadily take over, the revenues generated by gas taxes will decline. So we have to start thinking about alternatives. I don't think taxing the number of miles driven is the best answer. It may be better for the federal government to levy a transportation payroll tax and use the money to improve public transportation. They could apportion some of the revenue to the states so that state gas taxes could also be eliminated. But they'd have to earmark the funds for infrastructure and public transportation use, lest the states divert the funds to other uses. A payroll tax would take the sting out for citizens, since a smaller sum would be paid each pay period instead of in a lump sum. It would also allow for those who do not drive automobiles to share in the nation's transportation system rather than just pay a train or bus fare that doesn't come near meeting maintenance and development costs.

Simply put there folks in government that would like to better know where we go and when. Some may even want automated speed enforcement everywhere. Eventually perhaps even leading to needing permission to travel. Once the transponders or number plate readers are in place the possibilities are endless for ways to exploit the technology and infrastructure.

thenewspaper.com already caught government in a lie regarding the revenue reasons for going to this tax by mile model. Their revenues suffered because new heavy truck sales cratered, not because of hybrids.

The gasoline tax is anonymous. It scales with use and vehicle weight pretty well. Your '71 pinto with a 428SCJ stuffed in it or equally a '72 Vega with a 454, not withstanding of course. Then there is the cost of collecting the tax. The infrastructure required for tax by the mile is at present still rather expensive compared to fuel taxes. Meanwhile real fleet fuel economy hasn't changed significantly since the early 1990s. However the value of the dollar has gone down a good deal.

So, the solution, if there was a problem,* would be to increase the tax gas or fix the dollar. Maybe find a way to tax plug in electrics. However, government can 'never waste a crisis', or in this case an opportunity to grab a power that can then be exploited for decades to come.

*considering other areas of government always see road funds as something to re-purpose or raid makes it one of the better funded areas and thus if the diversions were stopped perhaps would have any financial issues greatly reduced if not eliminated.

Tumunga:If you think the government is going to get rid of the gas tax, you must be cracked. They'll keep that tax, and add the mileage tax to it's revenue stream.

All you FarkLibtards should be against the abolishment of the gas tax any way, right? Tax cuts don't work.

Yes, I am against the abolishment of the gas tax. I think a mileage tax should be added, for infrastructure, and the gas tax should be retained (and increased) as a pollution tax. I'm tired of subsidizing your pollution.

Fark_Guy_Rob:It actually makes driving longer distances more tolerable, making it easy to avoid 'real changes' like not living an hour drive away from where you work or cities investing money in public transportation systems because, without them, people won't live there.

Overall usage is declining though. Some people might be willing to drive farther, but not as much as you would think. AFAIK, sitting in traffic is a bigger disincentive for long commutes than high cost of gas.

Fark It:I think this is bullshiat. The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way. Mass transit isn't an option for most people.

I am finishing up a healthcare program with similar issues. I was able to take mass transit for the first semester in the program, but after that there was no way to take mass transit and arrive on time at the assigned clinical site. They send us all over a multi-county area for clinical rotations. I actually had to buy a car for the program; even car-pooling wasn't an option as different cohorts are at different sites at different times.

Terrydatroll:Actually with the current system people who drive more DO pay more for road usage since they have to buy more gasoline thereby paying more taxes for road usage. The gas tax also rewards those who responsibly use more fuel efficient vehicles. If they go with this moronic idea the guy driving the hybrid will pay the same a[mount toward taxes as the neck in the hummer when driving the same number of miles. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want but the whole idea is to be able to track vehicles, not make more tax money.

THIS!!

1) if revenue is down because more people are driving hybrids, increase the gas tax until you meet revenue goals.2) if you need more dollars for road and bridge repairs, increase the gas tax until you meet revenue goals.

this is not rocket science. this is designed to screw over hybrid, small car drivers and a savings for everyone else. hell taxing by mileage traveled and tracking via GPS are clearly unconstitutional. They directly and indirectly infringe on your right to travel.

The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause).

The gas tax also effectively penalizes people who don't know how to drive properly -- the gas-or-brake people who slam on the gas then slam on the brake constantly. It also encourages people like myself to hack their cars for better efficiency & performance.

Even with a 2nd AC added to my car (it's Florida and I like 45F air blowing from the air vents even if it is 98F outside), I'm getting ~26mpg in normal driving. Not bad for a 375HP 4.5L V8 9 year old car. For comparison, my friend with a brand new Lexus RX300h hybrid only gets 21-22mpg. I thought hybrids were supposed to be fuel efficient. The hybrid certainly isn't fun to drive by any means. The engine sounds terrible when you push it.

slayer199:I'm rather conflicted on this because I think people that drive more should pay more for the road infrastructure they use.

On the flip side, there was a strong incentive to drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle to offset rising fuel prices. So the government disincentivizes fuel-efficiency and indirectly promotes telecommuting.

The bottom line is that this won't have the desired effect because people that have long commutes will adapt.

Actually with the current system people who drive more DO pay more for road usage since they have to buy more gasoline thereby paying more taxes for road usage. The gas tax also rewards those who responsibly use more fuel efficient vehicles. If they go with this moronic idea the guy driving the hybrid will pay the same a[mount toward taxes as the neck in the hummer when driving the same number of miles. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want but the whole idea is to be able to track vehicles, not make more tax money.

Donnchadha:OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

I think the issue derives from the fact that nobody wants to raise the gas tax, and this would be a way to do so while letting your congressman argue "I didn't vote for no tax increases!" during his next reelection campaign.

Plus this dicks over the poor disproportionately more than the wealthy, so of course the GOP likes it and will be able to sell it pretty easily to its base.

Not sure how easy a sell this would be to anyone outside of the GOP base.

CujoQuarrel:How much of your actual cost is being subsidized by the government and my tax dollars?

In the 2012 model, $7,500 off the top from the Feds, and on the State level, it was sales tax free (about $3,000). Interestingly, just as incentives are designed to do, prices of electric cars are now rapidly coming down. The price of the 2013 Leaf dropped by about $6,000.

What I find most curious, is where were you "Oh noez, subsidies!" people 10-years ago, when we were giving huge tax ride offs to people buying Hummers.

dready zim:OgreMagi: Donnchadha: NutWrench: They aren't "replacing" shiat. This will be a new tax on top of the existing gasoline tax, no matter what they say.

But if that money gets turned around into improving and updating infrastructure (and also providing jobs in the meantime), I'm all for it.

Do you actually believe that is how the money will be spent?

No, but it is how it SHOULD be spent and quite often given a sheen of a lie that it actually is how it is spent by just not telling us what it really is spent on unless pushed. I too would be all for it if that would happen.

Just making sure you aren't delusional.

Add me to the list of people who don't think they'll be replacing the existing tax. They'll add the new tax and promise the old tax will be phased out. Except they'll forget to phase it out.

Noise can have a detrimental effect on wild animals, increasing the risk of death by changing the delicate balance in predator or prey detection and avoidance, and interfering the use of the sounds in communication, especially in relation to reproduction and in navigation. Acoustic overexposure can lead to temporary or permanent loss of hearing.

So, will you be buying an electric scooter, or are you in the "loud pipes save lives" crowd?

Fark It:I think this is bullshiat. The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way. Mass transit isn't an option for most people. Why go after motorists when you could go after the trucking and freight industries? An empty truck with trailer is at least 30,000 lbs, and they can weigh up to 80,000 lbs when they're loaded up with cargo. That wears down infrastructure a lot more than my car....

Don't be so quick to bash the trucking industry. If you've got it, a truck brought it, period.

Trucking already pays more than its fair share of tax:

The average truck gets (if lucky) 7 MPG, so clearly there is more tax paid at the pump.

Licensing (depending upon the state you're in) runs on average $2,000 per truck, per year.

Heavy highway tax to the feds of $575 per year per truck.

Highway use tax varies by state... in some states it's .15/mile.

Federal Excise Tax is 12.5% of all new trucks and tires purchased. Imagine buying a $20,000 car and paying an additional $2,500 on top of that for FET.

Compliance with EPA, DOT, etc. regulations has increased the average purchase price for a new truck from $70,000 to $135,000 in the past ten years.

And in order to haul to California, you need a new truck.

And you wonder why the cost of milk ain't what it used to be. It's expensive to haul it, and trucking companies can't do it for free.

People_are_Idiots:JackieRabbit: As electric and hybrid cars steadily take over, the revenues generated by gas taxes will decline. So we have to start thinking about alternatives. I don't think taxing the number of miles driven is the best answer. It may be better for the federal government to levy a transportation payroll tax and use the money to improve public transportation. They could apportion some of the revenue to the states so that state gas taxes could also be eliminated. But they'd have to earmark the funds for infrastructure and public transportation use, lest the states divert the funds to other uses. A payroll tax would take the sting out for citizens, since a smaller sum would be paid each pay period instead of in a lump sum. It would also allow for those who do not drive automobiles to share in the nation's transportation system rather than just pay a train or bus fare that doesn't come near meeting maintenance and development costs.

Problem with that. Hybrids and electrics are no longer "en vogue," due to the reality hitting the people in the face. What reality? They aren't effective alternatives to the standard gas engine, and in some cases more expensive, more polluting (depending who provides the electricity to your car), and a bit more dangerous. Heck, despite the number of hybrid models doubling, hybrid sales have dropped from 2.8% in 2008 to 2.4% in 2012. Matter of fact, in 2012, only 35% of those who bought into the hybrids look at hybrids again for a new vehicle.

If the gas tax goes away and the mile tax hits, even more people will be discouraged to switch, while I'll be busy driving my pickup around.

/still wants my air-powered car.

The hybrids did what they needed to do though, which was kick the industry in the ass a bit. If it wasn't for Prius and co. making fuel efficiency trendy, we wouldn't be seeing all these small 4 cylinder turbos. We'd still be doing, "put a V12 in that commuter car, AMERICA!"

BGates:OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

Fuel efficient vehicles are the problem. They drive more miles per tax they pay.

People who drive fuel efficient vehicles should be the ones who pay the fees since they are not paying their fair share.

Those cars are also heavily subsidized by the federal governments with some estimates at 40% of actual costs. Tripling the gas tax on green vehicles at a minimum is the only way to ensure they pay their fair share.

fireclown:Doesn't the gas tax already tax you per mile driven? And at the same time that it encourages efficient vehicles? If there is a shortfall, the rate can be increased. I don't like the idea of a GPS dealiewhatsit logging all my travels to the feds.

THIS!!!!

Raise the farking rate... What? Then more people will buy electric cars to avoid the gas tax? ISN'T THAT THE FARKING POINT!? We want more people driving electric cars, right?

Ya, I know, if everyone drives an electric car, then no one will pay the gas tax, and then how do you fund road infrastructure?!? I propose a system where every family sends their first born child at the age of 12 to work in the mandatory road work crews for 2 years as payment. Job creators exempt of course.

1. create an incentive for emplyoees to move closer to work, and industry to move closer to workforce, thus creating2. a tighter living infrastructure which has higher maintenance costs, higher crime, and is a better target for every disaster movie ever made, from infections to insurection to invasion to acts of FSM, which in turn,3. creates an impetus for surviving younglings to "get outta this craphole and live somwhere I can BREATHE... screw the miles tax", which leads to a congress (small c) that says "Hey... let's switch the tax to gallons consumed, not miles driven, and that will allow folks to disperse and reduce crime, poverty, and stress on inner city resources!! We've save a butt load of tax dollars!!"

fireclown:slayer199: Pretty much this. You know the government will find a way to exploit that GPS data if available.

It was the reason for my breakup with Progressive Flo.[www.curtisinsuranceagency.net image 314x319]

Ya broke my heart, Flo.

No me. I would do nasty, nasty things to Flo. I'd start by gently kissing her mega red lips and groping her more than ample behind. Slowly, I would work my way towards her hair bump which is where I would insert my manhood thrusting repeatedly while she yelled "I'll lower your insurance bill!! !" until I finally climaxed over her head and onto her FLO name tag on her until then, clean white smock.

wambu:Yes, let's do this. There are so many ways to cheat on this tax, many people will never pay any tax at all.

Pretty much this. I can disconnect the odometer/speedometer in about 3 minutes on my old pickup. More in the range of 15 seconds to disconnect the ones on the motorcycles. Since my state has no IM or safety inspections I could easily see a number of people saying "Yes, that is correct. I drove 8 miles last year. Problem?"

This is dumb. The system we have in place now already does this, the more you drive, the more gas you buy. The more gas you buy, the more tax you pay. If you drive an excessively large amount of miles yet insist on driving a low MPG vehicle, then that's your choice and you have no room to complain. High MPG cars are typically lighter weight and cause less wear/tear on roads so it pretty much evens out.

jaytkay:Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city. I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want. I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment. For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option. It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit. I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.

You have no choice about where you live and work?

Are you in prison?

He has a job. That is not something you readily give up to move to a city (likely more expensive where you're living) where you don't have a job (good luck getting one in this economy).

They really need to just increase the gas tax and/or increase plate fees if they need more money. Not only do I not trust the government to track me with a GPS, but it will take a lot of overhead to install/maintain all of the equipment necessary to have a miles-driven tax.

Thunderpipes:slayer199: I'm rather conflicted on this because I think people that drive more should pay more for the road infrastructure they use.

On the flip side, there was a strong incentive to drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle to offset rising fuel prices. So the government disincentivizes fuel-efficiency and indirectly promotes telecommuting.

The bottom line is that this won't have the desired effect because people that have long commutes will adapt.

No reason they can't raise taxes on both. Since when does that stop them?

Bonus? Hurts more rural people, helps more urban. Democrats tend to cluster more in urban environments.

Here in Minneapolis/St Paul they patched and resurfaced damn near all roads just before election day. The commute was smmootthh. Winter happened, still. All the bandaids fell off and you could lose a wheel real easily on any major road.

papercut:the progressive ODBII device doesn't have a GPS antenna in it, only an accelerometer and stuff to read the odometer, so it guesses how much you drive and also how aggressive. my wife used it and we got a 20+% discount, locked in forever*. and besides, the government already HAS the GPS data, unless you are a luddite without a cellphone. quit being ridiculous.

Plus it is a voluntary program. If you liked Progressive but not the snapshot program, you didn't need to use it.

fireclown:slayer199: Pretty much this. You know the government will find a way to exploit that GPS data if available.

It was the reason for my breakup with Progressive Flo.[www.curtisinsuranceagency.net image 314x319]

Ya broke my heart, Flo.

the progressive ODBII device doesn't have a GPS antenna in it, only an accelerometer and stuff to read the odometer, so it guesses how much you drive and also how aggressive. my wife used it and we got a 20+% discount, locked in forever*. and besides, the government already HAS the GPS data, unless you are a luddite without a cellphone. quit being ridiculous.

In my state the government already knows how many miles you drive. Once a year the inspection station plugs into your computer and gets a data dump. It would be easy to combine the mile tax and municipal property tax into one consolidated registration fee.

Yep, how hard would it be to require an odometer reading each year you renew your tags?

squegeebooo:Fark It: jaytkay: You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city. I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want. I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment. For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option. It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit. I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.

Right, we get it. You're above riding the bus. That's what homeless people do. And there's no way you could bike either, because "stuff".

I could bike, but in ideal weather it would probably be a four-hour commute each way on days that I have school and work. Forget if there's snow.

Infrastructure should be funded with a miles driven tax that is scaled by vehicle weight. The current gasoline tax should be abolished and replaced by a pollution tax that is at least as big as the current gas tax, and which is used to fund alternative transportation initiatives and/or give incentives to people with very efficient vehicles and electric vehicles.

jaytkay:You wrongly claimed there is no mass transit outside the Loop.

I said there are no decent mass transit options outside of the city. I don't have the luxury of a set schedule that I can plan a bus route around, nor do I have the luxury of being able to live wherever I want. I don't have the privilege of being able to take into account mass transit when it comes to my employment. For me, and millions of other people, mass transit is not a feasible, reliable option. It has nothing to do with bus riders being beneath anyone, and I certainly don't "choose" not to use mass transit. I would gladly take mass transit if I could, but this smug notion that people who don't use mass transit are a bunch of snobs who think they're above common folk or are somehow too good for public transit is horseshiat.

Instead of driving 180 miles/week to and from work, I'll drive 20/week and take the train. It will cost me about 4 hours of time, but enjoy that tax money. Just like how your cigarette tax increase got me to quit.

The_Original_Roxtar:lets see... I drive ~22000 miles per year.at $0.015/mile, that's $330 under the new tax

under the old version, those miles are split around 19000 miles at 22 mpg and 3000 miles at 60mpg. 864 gallons + 50 gallons = 914 gallons. at $0.184/gallon, that's $168.18 under the old tax

you're punishing truckers more than anything else. increased shipping costs means everything is going to cost more, people will spend less, and the economy starts sucking even more. Looks like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through.

fireclown:Doesn't the gas tax already tax you per mile driven? And at the same time that it encourages efficient vehicles? If there is a shortfall, the rate can be increased. I don't like the idea of a GPS dealiewhatsit logging all my travels to the feds.

Pretty much this. You know the government will find a way to exploit that GPS data if available.

Fark this noise. It's perfectly legit that the gas tax punishes people who drive gas guzzlers and rewards those who drive fuel efficient vehicles. If too many people buy fuel efficient vehicles to properly fund infrastructure, then recalibrate the level of the tax across the board. But those who damage the environment and drive up fuel costs for everyone else should have to pay extra to do so.

cgraves67:OtherBrotherDarryl: How about a tax based on the number of miles driven but where there are incentives/penalties for driving more/less fuel efficient cars (ie, a gas tax).

I was just thinking that. If we had a mileage tax, I'd pay the same in my 4x4 as the guy in the Prius who drives the same distance. With the gas tax, I buy more gas and pay more taxes for the same miles driven. The mileage tax would be far less painful for me than the Prius driver.

I think that is the point. They are losing gas tax money from the people with the fuel efficient cars that they pushed. Now they want that money that they are losing.

Bendal:Fark It: I think this is bullshiat. The healthcare program I'm applying for only has a handful of clinical sites that are in the county, some are 90 minutes each way. Mass transit isn't an option for most people. Why go after motorists when you could go after the trucking and freight industries? An empty truck with trailer is at least 30,000 lbs, and they can weigh up to 80,000 lbs when they're loaded up with cargo. That wears down infrastructure a lot more than my car

That is true, except the # of passenger cars far, far outnumbers the # of trucks on the road, and those cars fill up all the lanes and constantly need new ones added. There's more to what the gas tax pays for than worn out pavement and bridges; it also pays for the new lanes too.

I live in the Chicago metro. The only decent mass transit options are if you are commuting to the loop. What is this "adding lanes" that you speak of?

slayer199:I'm rather conflicted on this because I think people that drive more should pay more for the road infrastructure they use.

On the flip side, there was a strong incentive to drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle to offset rising fuel prices. So the government disincentivizes fuel-efficiency and indirectly promotes telecommuting.

The bottom line is that this won't have the desired effect because people that have long commutes will adapt.

No reason they can't raise taxes on both. Since when does that stop them?

Bonus? Hurts more rural people, helps more urban. Democrats tend to cluster more in urban environments.

vernonFL:I do know there are exemptions for diesel (shouldn't they be tested MORE?)

The problem with diesels is up until recently with DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) there was no way to "clean" diesel exhaust, so what ever comes out of the engine is what comes out of the exhaust pipe. Emissions testing just tests all the equipment that cleans the exhaust.

vernonFL:Donnchadha: /31 states do have emissions testing, but generally only in major metropolitan areas for pollution concerns -- most are not implemented statewide.

My state (Maryland) has emission testing statewide every 2 years, and yes on newer models they just plug into the computer under the dash. On older cars they put a sensor in the tailpipe to actually test the exhaust.

Wikipedia and Maryland's MVA website agree -- only 13 counties (out of 23) plus Baltimore City require testing, and within that there's a fair number of exemptions

Donnchadha:/31 states do have emissions testing, but generally only in major metropolitan areas for pollution concerns -- most are not implemented statewide.

My state (Maryland) has emission testing statewide every 2 years, and yes on newer models they just plug into the computer under the dash. On older cars they put a sensor in the tailpipe to actually test the exhaust.

In my state the government already knows how many miles you drive. Once a year the inspection station plugs into your computer and gets a data dump. It would be easy to combine the mile tax and municipal property tax into one consolidated registration fee.

Or they could just take 1.5 cents per mile target revenue times typical miles per year and charge $200 per year to register a car.